[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 14 KB, 468x324, image002.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6443019 No.6443019 [Reply] [Original]

I'm driving my car 65mph down a road. I turn on the headlights.

Aren't the headlights moving at the speed of light+65mph?

>> No.6443031

No.

>> No.6443032

Erryday we shitpostin

>> No.6443030

Christ. Not this again.

Relativity.

>> No.6443040

Just in the off chance that this isn't a shitpost.

Light travels at a fixed speed relative to any observer. So the light travels at c relative to the car and it travels at c relative to an observer beside the road. Time moves SLIGHTLY slower for the person in the car relative to the person beside the road, so the light travels less distance relative to them but in a shorter time so it still goes at c. For the observer beside the road the light travels a further distance relative to their position but over a longer interval so it still moves at c.

>> No.6443041

Wait...

So relativity says that the speed of light remains constant relative to the observer?

Well how the fuck does that work... where does the energy go?

>> No.6443044

>>6443041
The speed of light is the same relative to ANY observer. Where does what energy go?

>> No.6443050

>>6443044
>Where does what energy go?

The energy of 65mph.

Are you actually saying that the extra speed of 65mph goes into slowing down time for the occupant just so he can experience the speed of light not going any faster because it doesnt want to rush itself?

Making the speed of light the one universal constant sure is awkward for everything else. Which is why i wouldve ordinarily said it was bullshit when expressed this way.

>> No.6443055

Einstein was a jew, he tricked you all. Light is not a relative constant. Prove me wrong.

And don't use Einstein's tricky jew methods and his paid-for "experiments"

>> No.6443058

>>6443055
>light is not a relative constant
Wow, even I wouldn't be able to fall for that bait.

>> No.6443059

>>6443050
The inertia increases.

>> No.6443061

>>6443050
Haha I see what you mean now. Technically it doesn't take any energy to go 65mph relative to another observer. Uniform motion doesn't require energy. The car's energy is going into air resistance (produces heat). And he's not slowing down time. It's just relative to another observer.

>> No.6443062

>>6443040
DISCLAIMER, I'm a huge plebeian. Can anyone who actually knows something tell me if I got it more or less right?

>> No.6443068

>>6443050


>Are you actually saying that the extra speed of 65mph goes into slowing down time for the occupant just so he can experience the speed of light not going any faster because it doesnt want to rush itself?
>extra speed of 65mph
The driver might be going 65mph in the reference frame of someone standing on the road, but in his own reference frame, he's stationary. Why should light look like it's going a different speed to the driver just because you can't get over the idea of an absolute rest frame?

>> No.6443073

>>6443062
yeah it's kinda like Lorenz transforms

>> No.6443086

>>6443068
>but in his own reference frame, he's stationary
No he isnt.

>>6443059
>The inertia increases.
Inertia is a measure of how much energy is required to move something. This in no way means that the light should go a constant speed.

>> No.6443088

>>6443086
you're wrong on both accounts

>> No.6443095

I mean, light should either have the doppler effect because its a wave.

Or genuinely go faster if it was a particle.

In some ways its like electrons / photons are a sub-sub-atomic particle like muons. Their more like the stuff that makes up stuff than actual stuff.

>> No.6443096

>>6443088
>you're wrong on both accounts
I can potentially accept that. I just have to understand why and how.

>> No.6443097

>>6443096
In a sec.
I'm trying to suck my wine through a twizzler

>> No.6443098

>>6443019
I have a submarine and a car. Both move at 65 mph and turn the headlights at the same time. Is the car's light faster than the submarine's light?

>> No.6443104

>>6443068
>absolute rest
"According to the theory of relativity it is said that an object is at rest relative to another."

"...according to Albert Einstein's theory of relativity an object is either at rest or in motion relative to motion around the objects surrounding."

Ok so things arnt at absolute rest... the.... its just relative.

So things are relativly at rest.

And... light?... is also relative to the observer?

Thats 2 things which are relative.
I have to say my warning alarm bell is ringing.

>> No.6443107

>>6443098
>Is the car's light faster than the submarine's light?

It has to be. Moving through a solid and moving through a liquid require different energy rates... and besides the emission spectrum. THE EMISSION SPECTRUM.

Guys right. Light is slower in liquid.

And light from a source moving faster... why is it not faster? Im still working on the problem.

>> No.6443117

>>6443104
Or rather to say... more accurately i think. The speeding car on the road has DECREASED its relativity with the speed of the road.

But light on the other hand has INCREASED in relativity to the observer both in the car and outside.

And... seemingly it has increased in order to be identical for both observers.

But... how.

>> No.6443114

>>6443097
perfect!
>>6443086
> he is stationary in his own reference frame.

There are these things called Galilean transforms used to go between reference frames.
One of them are called "boosts".
> All reference frames in uniform rectilinear motion with respect to an inertial reference frame are also inertial.
Galileo observed this. Galileo's ship and stuff.
So we have one reference frame fixed on Earth and another fixed on the man.
In this reference frame the man is not only moving but the frame he's in is inertial.

K = 1/2 m v^2
where m increases when we get closer to the speed of light. Lorenz transforms and stuff.

>> No.6443113

>>6443107
Can one travel faster than light (in liquid)? What if there are other dimensions and what not and we can actually travel faster than this light?

>> No.6443119
File: 36 KB, 500x375, cthulu-story-bro.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6443119

>>6443113
I think you jammed my brain.

>> No.6443125

>>6443119
Even worse. What if a vehicle is traveling almost equally as the speed of light and suddenly it goes through water? Does it vaporize/travel to the future or does it freezes and lowers its energy until it reaches the waters lightspeedlimit?

>> No.6443136

>>6443041
>So relativity says that the speed of light remains constant relative to the observer?
No, it doesn't or rather that's what we observed, relativity explains this seeming paradox.

>> No.6443144

>>6443114
>> All reference frames in uniform rectilinear motion with respect to an inertial reference frame are also inertial.

Yeah ok, so what?

This is just like the 0th law of thermodynamics.
"If a body, be in thermal equilibrium with two other bodies, then they are in thermal equilibrium with one another."

Except its actually more like expressing the opposite side of it...

> All reference frames in uniform rectilinear motion with respect to an inertial reference frame are also inertial.

So your saying that... if im going at 65mph, everyone else on the planet thats going at 65mph also... is experiencing the same light that i am?

... but why does light still stay constant?

>> No.6443168

>>6443125
I'd imagine it would smash the atoms of water. Creating allot of radiation. It itself would also be smashed.

>>6443113
>Can one travel faster than light (in liquid)? What if there are other dimensions and what not and we can actually travel faster than this light?

... you could certainly bend light around you... potentially. Then that'd be just as good as water. But i dont think you'd really be traveling faster than light because of it. Although technically, to an observer you could appear distorted along the length of the light pocket. You could potentially bend light to create a airfoil... this might move you along.

>> No.6443191

>>6443113
>Can one travel faster than light (in liquid)?
Yes. Particles have been observed to do it, and interestingly they create "shock waves" when they do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation

>> No.6443270

>>6443191
So.. the shockwave HAS to show that the radiation is non relativistic.

>> No.6443273

>>6443144
I thought you were asking how it remains constant not why.

Best explanation I have is: There is a cosmic speed limit c which nothing can travel faster than.
The universe does what it can to achieve this goal.

I really don't know much else at the time, but I really look forward to learning it sometime in the future.

>> No.6443286

>>6443191
Huh.. i just thought about it, does that mean i had the potential to become a nobel prize winner for this idea i had but another dude took it already years ago?

>> No.6443298

>>6443286
>had the potential to become a nobel prize winner for this idea i had but another dude took it already years ago?

Yes.

But all this means is that you are up to date. Which means you have a good chance of overtaking them at some point.

>> No.6443310

>>6443298
But they are too hard... I was just thinking shit, i'm not even in the physics field

>> No.6443312

>>6443310
Yes, but you can always be in the 'Life' field. Which contains the physics field as a subset.

>> No.6443509

Light is emitted from bulb-...particles don't exist in that form previously , therefore there is no "initial stationary phase" for the light that has just been thrown into our world .There is no further acceleration from this point past the burst of speed which the proton passes into upon upheaval-- If light is only going the lowest possible speed, it is still shooting out of the bulb at a faster rate than the car is coming toward it, and we realize that the dome in which it exists has a halfway 'vacuum' because of the suction created by wind rushing against the closed ridge of the container the headlight is kept in, then there is no particle interference brought on by the constant wind so there is hardly any macroscopic observation of resistance upon the surface of the protons-- which still would not have much of an impact at all, then the light is already away from the car completely by the time any quantifiable limit of speed transference could be measured.

>> No.6443513

>>6443019
Yes. Unless you are driving away, in which case they travel at speed of light-65 mph.

>> No.6443528
File: 32 KB, 761x552, 1285770751942.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6443528

>speed of light+65mph?
> 65 mph FASTER than the SPEED OF LIGHT.

>> No.6443531

>>6443050

When you increase the speed the mass of the object increases and the body experiments and elongation in the axis in which it is traveling.

So if you put infinite energy you will be infinitely heavy and large, but you won't surpass the speed of light.

>> No.6443533

>>6443528

Tfw scientists are trying a similar thing with plasma engines.

>> No.6443591
File: 46 KB, 420x240, hearkenuntome.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6443591

>>6443019
>Aren't the velocities additive?
What a quaint little notion you have there, O Medieval peasant. Run along now, there is grain to be harvested, and cows to be milked.

>> No.6443654

>>6443019
How does it feel to be retarded? I mean you're joking right? Or are you still in lower school?

>> No.6443683

>>6443019
it would take about 5 lightyears to accelerate

>> No.6443705

>>6443528
Speed of light could not be faster than a speed of light. The derivate is stable.

>> No.6443754

>>6443019
It sucks to see so many ignorant ppl in here.
I'll provide you guys some info, so you are a bit less ignorant.

The notion that the one-way speed of light is constant in every direction is constant in every direction is unproveable. The two-way constancy has only been proven and it is more intuitive to say the speed of light differs relative to you own velocity.

So out of the perspective of the car, the light may be moving at c-65mph. But unfortunately one cannot know the absolute frame of reference.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_speed_of_light